Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Actually, a lot of creationists look rather inbred.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The contestants of the Miss America competition sound off on evolution.
- Thread starter Gjallarhorn
- Start date
Actually, a lot of creationists look rather inbred.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Shermana
Heretic
Amazon.com: The Genetic Cycle of Life: Nanohistory and Macro Evolution (9780968095225): D. G. Loomis: Books
Amazon.com: Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Laws of Life Symposia) (9781891276491): Elisabeth S. Vrba, Niles Eldredge: Books
Amazon.com: Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution (9780521005500): Jeffrey S. Levinton: Books
Amazon.com: Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (9780801857355): Professor Steven M. Stanley: Books
Amazon.com: MacRo Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks (9780070194748): Niles Eldredge: Books
Amazon.com: The Codes of Life: The Rules of Macroevolution (Biosemiotics) eBook: Marcello Barbieri: Kindle Store
Amazon.com: The Codes of Life: The Rules of Macroevolution (Biosemiotics) (9789048176113): Marcello Barbieri: Books
Amazon.com: Plant Microevolution and Conservation in Human-influenced Ecosystems (9780521818353): David Briggs: Books
Amazon.com: Cycles of Life : Exploring Biology : Microevolution: Biology: Movies & TV
Amazon.com: Microevolution in Human Populations (9780135815120): Francis E. Johnston: Books
Amazon.com: Migration and Colonization in Human Microevolution (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology) (9780521019545): Alan G. Fix: Books
Amazon.com: Microevolution of Fishes: Evolutionary Aspects of Phenetic Diversity (9788170870609): M. V. Mina, A. V. Yablokov: Books
Amazon.com: Microevolution: Rate, Pattern, Process (Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution, Volume 8) (9781402001086): Andrew P. Hendry, Michael T. Kinnison: Books
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
All that is fine and dandy, but what scientists mean when they say macroevolution is given here:
from wikipedia:
"macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one the only difference between them is of time and scale."
you mean micro and macro evolution to be separate theories. They are not, and scientists agree.
Shermana
Heretic
Many do, there's no denying. Not saying they're all morally fibrous.
But there's a reason why almost all of the girls in such competitions are Creationist.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Also, you are doing what is written here almost to the letter:
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Yes, the reason is that they are morons.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
In fact, I think I will paste the whole text from wikipedia for the benefit of others:
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[13] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][14] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][15] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[16] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[17][18]
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]
Shermana
Heretic
Now here's the problem as I've addressed in the other threads.
Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There does indeed seem to be a misuse of the word "Species" to account for a subspecies in this ideological war.
As it stands, even the Scientists are fighting over use of the word "Species", and most of it for exactly this reason. They don't want to admit that true Macro-speciation has not been observed. Fruit flies turning into new varieties of fruit flies is called "Macro" by some, and (rightfully) "Micro" by others.
So the concrete definition is not so concrete.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Also, from wikipedia:
Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular in the anti-evolution movement, in particular among young Earth creationists, to distinguish between evolutionary changes among populations which can interbreed (microevolution) and changes among populations which cannot interbreed (macroevolution). The main argument is that change beyond the species level would require similar enough changes in both a male and female in the same place and time, and that those two would have to successfully interbreed in order to create a sustainable population. Although theoretically possible, the combination of factors are seen to be so improbable as to become implausible.
The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[46][not in citation given] Essentially they describe the same process; although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could. Even changes in the number of chromosomes can be accounted for by intermediate stages in which a single chromosome divides in generational stages, or multiple chromosomes fuse. A well documented example is the chromosome difference between humans and great apes.[47]
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[48] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[49]
Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular in the anti-evolution movement, in particular among young Earth creationists, to distinguish between evolutionary changes among populations which can interbreed (microevolution) and changes among populations which cannot interbreed (macroevolution). The main argument is that change beyond the species level would require similar enough changes in both a male and female in the same place and time, and that those two would have to successfully interbreed in order to create a sustainable population. Although theoretically possible, the combination of factors are seen to be so improbable as to become implausible.
The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[46][not in citation given] Essentially they describe the same process; although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could. Even changes in the number of chromosomes can be accounted for by intermediate stages in which a single chromosome divides in generational stages, or multiple chromosomes fuse. A well documented example is the chromosome difference between humans and great apes.[47]
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[48] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[49]
Shermana
Heretic
Hardly a "misuse," it's just a philosophical debate.
It's a fight that's agreeably decided when it comes to practical application, though.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
The species problem wouldn't exist unless evolution was true.
Shermana
Heretic
Thank you for proving exactly what I've been trying to say on the other threads, the use of the term "Macro" and "Micro" evolution is indeed an issue of ideology but when the facts and details are actually examined, the "Micro" definition is the one that wins the day. "Macro" has never truly been observed, only Micro, and the use of the word "Macro" for Fruit fly speciation invokes the "Species problem". Thus, although the word "Macro" evolution has been used by some to refer to Fruit flies and mosquitoes forming sub populations, it's also been referred to as Micro.
As demonstrated with the "Species problem", any reader can see that the issue is not exactly concrete, but the evidence only indicates "Micro" evolution in its exact definition, and the word "Speciation" as opposed to "Subspeciation" is not exactly clear even in the "Scientific community", probably for this reason alone.
Shermana
Heretic
Explain what you mean, "Evolution" is 100% true in its Micro form, there's no denying that. However, the whole "Species problem" is an issue because of the Semantic word games involved with "Macro evolution" and what exactly the evidence indicates.
For instance, new fruit fly varieties are not truly new "species" as many ideological warriors would hope to say, they are "Subspecies", which is Microevolution, though some refer to it as "Macro", it's only really semi-macro in its definition and thus Micro.
If anything, it's a great example of 1984 style wordplay that the establishment uses to confuse people.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Shermana, please explain what you mean by macroevolution, because within the scientific community, macroevolution is just evolution with magnified timescale. There is no substantive difference between micro and macro evolution according to the scientific community.
Shermana
Heretic
If there was no difference, then you wouldn't have those books I listed on that page.
Macro-evolution, in its true definition, with the correct understanding of "Species", means things like bats growing wings and fish growing legs. (Tiktaalik was nothing close and was a water skimmer). And lungs. It is purely theory, never been observed, and there is no transitional evidence whatsoever.
Shermana
Heretic
Yes, you said that its a debate that's decided when practical application comes in, and that's why I said "Microevolution" as the definition wins the day, it's the only practical application with the observed evidence.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Thank you. Now I know you don't understand anything. good day!